franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

SOME THOUGHTS ON FAITH

4/28/2015

0 Comments

 
Often, the religious claim that some belief of theirs is a matter of faith, and therefore isn't open to debate. The idea is that no arguments can be used against their position since the position is not based on arguments in the first place. This is a mistake, however. It is true that one cannot present any counter-arguments to a faith-based view, given that there aren't any arguments to counter; but it isn't true that one can't argue against the view itself. Faith-based beliefs are every bit as susceptible to criticism as other beliefs. And in fact the principal criticism in their case is very easy: since a faith-based belief has no justification, it can simply be dismissed. That is what Christopher Hitchens meant when he said that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Might there be some justification for faith itself, however? Well, to justify faith as a means of acquiring truth, one has two options: either provide some reason for believing in it – some evidence that it works, in other words – or claim that the efficacy of faith is itself a matter of faith. The latter is obviously circular and therefore unhelpful. But the former can't be right either, for as soon as one has a reason for accepting some method as efficacious, then one is no longer taking whatever it shows to be true on faith. One now has evidence for whatever it is, after all – namely, that the method used works!

Now, there are those who will insist that obviously we must take some things on faith, for we cannot have reasons for literally everything. How does one justify reasoning itself, for instance? If one uses logic to argue that logic is valid, then one is arguing in a circle; the only option, therefore, is to take it on faith. But the idea that one must have faith in logic is actually nonsense. The laws of logic are unavoidable in that they are presupposed in every belief and every statement. That's not an argument in defense of logic – it's an explanation why logic is necessarily true. And if being necessarily true isn't sufficient to justify something, then nothing is.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon